In this thread, we will be delving into the documents recently released to the FBI vault in regards to Anthony Wiener's laptop onto which Huma Abedin
transferred tens of thousands of work related emails; many of which contained information that was classified at the time (and which remain) in which
said transfers took place.

The opening paragraph clearly states under which statute they intend to seize the laptop:

(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph,
photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the
national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any
foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate,
deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the
same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph,
photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross
negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen,
abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in
violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction
to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Clearly the agent believes, and the issuing judge agrees, that this statute is applicable to the laptop. The next couple of pages assert this even
further, citing additional statues under which the information is to be protected.

Hillary and Huma cannot claim that they did not know they weren't allowed to keep such information in an unapproved location due to the fact
that they were granted security clearances:

What follows are several pages of technical information about the laptop itself and the number of emails found thereon including numerous redactions,
one more of which is the Special Agent's name again redacted under seal.

The next item of interest, to me, is the existence of a 'filter team' which is to review the evidence located on the lap top prior to it being
released to the rest of the FBI Investigative Team:

There are many more pages, but the main gist of the thread has been set up and those pages can be further dissected in subsequent posts.

I submit that the FBI did not reopen the investigation in order to determine if there were anything more that Hillary and her associates could be
charged, but rather merely to provide for a means to acquire the laptop in order to make sure further evidence of crimes were not made public.

Thank you so much. It gets frustrating seeing all the people complaining about ATS's decline and doing nothing to reverse that but rather making
endless amounts of trolling posts attempting to make fun of those of us who wish to have significant discussions about topics which are of import to
our country.

Now, let's take a look at Comey's statement in which he laid out all the violations of the law to which Hillary was a party of but did not mean to
violate:

There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the
position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no
place for that conversation.

This is where Comey was giving her an out by saying that she "should have known." There is no, "shoud have," in this circumstance, she
did know that an unsecured server was not a valid storage location for any such classified information. How do we know, besides using common
sense, that Hillary knew this for a certain fact?

Hillary's signature on the above document shows that she knew what possessing a security clearance entails. She wasn't coerced into setting up an
unsecured, unapproved server upon which to conduct her official state business. She did so knowing full well that it was against the law.

There is no "willful" or "knowing" descriptor in the law on classified information.

Comey made that up.

That's bothered me for some time.

If you unwittingly or without foreknowledge release a classified document out into the wild then it is against the law and by allowing it to be out of
its security protocols you are in violation of the law.

"This is where Comey was giving her an out by saying that she 'should have known'."

Safeguarding classified information is the Number One rule for anyone with a security clearance/access to classified. Every person with this access
reads and signs a nondisclosure agreement. "Should have known" is a ridiculous statement by someone that should know better than to make such a
stupid remark.

Additionally, Comey's statement now makes the nondisclosure rule unenforceable under the law--because if the FBI cannot charge a person for failing to
safeguard classified information, how can any other law enforcement agency do so?

I've had a TS/SCI/SBI with other tickets for more than 30 years. There are several questions a case agent asks reference interviewees during a
person's re-investigation (periodic background check) for retaining access. Two that apply here are:

Q: "Do you know of any instances when this person failed to safeguard classified information?"

A: Yeah, we all read about it in the press.

Q: "Would you recommend this person for continued access to classified information?"

A: No, because she demonstrated a cavalier attitude about compromising classified information over an unclassified network. It was no big deal to
her.

If you substitute, for instance, Hillary Clinton for 'US Navy sailor A', Huma as 'US Navy sailor B', Weiner as 'US Navy sailor C' and so no and so
forth, then resubmit the investigation docs to the Pentagon, DOJ, FBI etc, I bet they would find plenty of evidence for mega-jail-time.

Big time.

Hillary must be an actual witch, no-one has this much influence over people unless weird-assed juju is at play.

Thank you both for weighing in on this aspect. I've never had a security clearance so I don't have the first hand knowledge you posses.

I can read and comprehend the statutes related to clearances though and based upon those and yours and others personal experiences, it is easy to see
that had any other person acted in the same way as did Hillary and her cohorts, they would currently be behind bars; not have had a failed
presidential run.

Indeed, it's simple really. The former administration's DOJ & FBI actively ran interference for criminal activity and when they didn't get the outcome
they wanted (she wasn't supposed to lose), they did everything in their power to take out the one person who could shine the light on their
malfaesnce.

I really hope Trump isn't just business as usual and that once the Mueller farce comes to a close the actual seditious behavior that has been exposed
is given due consideration and consequences brought to bear upon the responsible parties.

1. Intending to be legally bound, I hereby accept the obligations contained in this Agreement in consideration of my being granted access to
classified information. As used in this Agreement, classified information is marked or unmarked classified information, including oral
communications, that is classified under the standards of Executive Order 13526, or under any other Executive order or statute that prohibits the
unauthorized disclosure of information in the interest of national security; and unclassified information that meets the standards for
classification and is in the process of a classification determination as provided in sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4(e) of Executive Order 13526, or
under any other Executive order or statute that requires protection for such information in the interest of national security. I understand and
accept that by being granted access to classified information, special confidence and trust shall be placed in me by the United States
Government.

2. I hereby acknowledge that I have received a security indoctrination concerning the nature and protection of classified
information, including the procedures to be followed in ascertaining whether other persons to whom I contemplate disclosing this information
have been approved for access to it, and that I understand these procedures.

3. I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified information by me could
cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation.I hereby agree that I will never
divulge classified information to anyone unless: (a) I have officially verified that the recipient has been properly authorized by the United
States Government to receive it; or (b) I have been given prior written notice of authorization from the United States Government Department or
Agency (hereinafter Department or Agency) responsible for the classification of information or last granting me a security clearance that such
disclosure is permitted. I understand that if I am uncertain about the classification status of information, I am required to confirm from an
authorized official that the information is unclassified before I may disclose it, except to a person as provided in (a) or (b), above. I further
understand that I am obligated to comply with laws and regulations that prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of classified information

7. I understand that all classified information to which I have access or may obtain access by signing this Agreement is now and will remain
the property of, or under the control of the United States Government unless and until otherwise determined by an authorized official or final ruling
of a court of law.I agree that I shall return all classified materials which have, or may come into my possession or for which I am
responsible because of such access: (a) upon demand by an authorized representative of the United States Government; (b) upon the conclusion of my
employment or other relationship with the Department or Agency that last granted me a security clearance or that provided me access to classified
information; or (c) upon the conclusion of my employment or other relationship that requires access to classified information. If I do not
return such materials upon request, I understand that this may be a violation of sections 793 and/or 1924, title 18, United States Code, a United
States criminal law

As you can clearly, without a doubt see, one of the following is a true statement:

1. Hillary Clinton lied about not knowing classification markings, not knowing information was classified because it wasn't marked, etc.

2. Hillary Clinton knowingly and willfully fraudulently signed a legal government form to gain access to classified information.

I'm going to dig into this later. I have been wanting to, and just had to finish up my last "dig," tending my threads and all that good stuff.

But this is awesome. I can't wait to really check it out. In fact, I'm actually kinda sorta a little disappointed that I have to put it off until
after I get some yard work done... normally I'm happy to put anything and everything off to work in the yard!

However, being a good ATSer and getting back to the OP, there were reports that the DOJ was putting pressure on the NYPD via the Eric Gardner case, as
in "we won't go after you for Gardner if you do x, y and z for us" kinda thing. I don't know how or if this fits in yet, but it is what got me
wondering what all went on between the DOJ and the NYPD, including in the Weiner case. None of that played out kosher.

Thanks, again j&c -- love it! I'll be back if I have anything worth adding.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.